CREEPY SKETCHY
There’s a universal “Creep Line.” Tech is moving it.
There’s a thin line between “creepy” and “romantic.”
And in the accelerating metamorphosis of privacy, information, and utility, we’re constantly redefining behavioral norms in respect to the acceptable “Creep Line.”
Tech companies do their own dance around the universal Creep Line — often intentionally limiting our control, or even awareness of where that line falls.
With re to technology, North Americans and Europeans view privacy differently. To Europeans (particularly those in France and Germany), Google, Facebook, AirBnb, etc aren’t friendly, altruistic companies offering useful services that benefit humanity. They’re faceless, American giants with the targeted goals of avoiding taxes, ignoring local regulations (and cultures), and sucking personal information.
In my experience, Europeans are more aware of tech’s relationship with their “Creep Line.” They push back on the blind acceptance of trading information for services. However, the noise being made doesn’t stop them from taking the 15gb of free storage.
Working on Google campaigns in Germany, France, Italy, and the UK, the marketing efforts are as much about tackling perception as they are promoting a product, service, or useful behavior. Google knows they don’t need to sell their products. They need Europeans to trust them. But what is there to trust when it’s clearly in tech’s business interest to slide the “Creep Line” as far as possible?
The frustrating part in the current arrangement is that we — the Third Estate— are constantly behind the curve. There’s certainly technology being developed today that will be felt in 5 years. Have we made it clear what would be acceptable with respect to the “Creep Line?” Or will tech continue to nudge that line until we end up somewhere unrecognizable?
Recently, a friend ran a Google search on how to connect a record player with Bluetooth speakers. His results served a YouTube link to the moment in a video where his search query was answered.
Assuming this is machine learning working off the massive potential training set that is 400 hours of video uploading to YouTube every minute, we’re looking at a seismic shift in the dissemination of information through search.
Who guides this shift? Who determines “relevance” in video results? How does this parlay into voice results? We’ll barely quantify the extent and impact of the current disinformation in Facebook and Google ads by the time there’s a new, more powerful format of sharing information and “truth.”
“Under the pretense of civilization and progress, we have managed to banish from the mind everything that may rightly or wrongly be termed superstition or fancy; forbidden is any kind of search for truth which is not in conformance with accepted practices.” — André Breton
The Creep Line falls further away when considering not just YouTube, but all video captured and spaces mapped. There’s certainly utility and value in AR and IoT, but putting SLAM in every phone and vehicle will generate an uncomfortable amount of information about our movements and environments…perfect for the machines to compile, process, and deduce “relevance.”
With regards to where tech and influence and manipulation can go, the 2016 US election is just a toe in the water. And you would assume there would be a bigger reaction. But maybe Stan C from Facebook is right — maybe we are too dumb to understand?
Assuming we’re not too dumb, how best to get people to care about something they don’t fully understand or have access to info about? Tougher still, as a species, have we ever collectively cared about something that hasn’t happened yet?
